- Services
- About Us
- Press Room
- Project Profiles
- Contact
When a site is not properly characterized; when contaminant
transport is not understood; when remediation options are just "off
the shelf"; when no one is willing to challenge regulators, you will
end up with excessive costs. Your CFO might call it a
money pit!
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, we will spend 90 minutes
talking with you about selected case studies, focusing on common and
uncommon mistakes we have uncovered. Hopefully, we can trigger some
new ideas that can help you take your project in a new direction and
save your company money.
Case Study One:
Our client was on the losing end of a $20,000,000 class
action lawsuit involving a gasoline release.
They felt hopeless because the liable party was one of
two; either our client or a multi-billion dollar company. And
the multi-billion dollar company had a big name environmental
consultant who felt confident they would pin about 97% of the
liability on our client.
We’ll show you how we turned the tables in the case and how
the big name consultant became too confident and too myopic missing
basic contaminant transport concepts.
Case
Study Two:
Our client was stuck with an expensive, open-ended
remediation.
Previous investigations at this site did not evaluate groundwater
flow correctly.
Furthermore, there was a second off-site source that was completely
missed.
We’ll show you how we solved their problems, saved them millions
of dollars, and now have them on the “home stretch” toward site
closure.
Case Study Three:
Our client was located in a community where the municipal government
agency had “final say” regarding cleanup criteria.
They chose more stringent criteria than the governing
environmental agency. These more stringent standards meant our
client would have to spend more money – a lot more money – to
remediate groundwater.
Further, this municipal government was proud that they had never
allowed anyone to deviate from these standards. We’ll show
you how we used good science to convince them to change their
mind, and how we saved our client a LOT of money.
Case
Study Four:
“To pump or not to pump? That is the question.”
We present two mini-case studies that examine the value of
pump-and-treat remediation for TCE plumes. In one case study,
we used groundwater flow modeling to demonstrate the existing
pump-and-treat system was not required at all to meet allowable
remediation targets. In the other case study, we used a mass
transport model to demonstrate that a proposed “rapid” remedial
approach using chemical injection, was inappropriate in the
local hydrogeologic environment; pump-and-treat was better suited
for that plume. Bottom line, the right answer = money saved.
